Final Round: Crucifixion and Resurrection

Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are of the most important part of the Gospels. Both John and Mark spend a long time talking about the Last Supper, of Judas' betrayal and the judgement of Jesus. There is one thing in which Mark focuses the most, which is on Jesus' humiliation. He talks a whole deal of how they spat on him, they whipped him and let him to die in the cross. Reading the crucifixion according to Mark was like watching "The Passion of the Christ" with less blood.
Earlier in the Gospel, Jesus predicts his death and resurrection three times, but nobody really understand what he says. Later, when he relates the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, everything becomes clear to everyone. Still, nobody does anything to stop it because "it is written". Judas betrays Jesus, even when he predicts it in the Last Supper, and Peter, like Jesus predicted, "That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."(Mark 14:30).
 It seem it really was written, because even when Jesus warned them ahead, they both did what they were meant to do. What later came was a perfect portrayal of "The Passion of the Christ". Like the Gospel said:
"And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, and began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him."(Mark 15:17-20). I remember watching this in the movie, and it really was as terrible (or worse) as it sounds.
In the end, after Jesus finally dies, he is buried and three days later, he resurrects and ascends to heaven while his disciples spread his message. This part in the Gospel of Mark was a little short. John, on the other hand, focused more on the resurrection than on the crucifixion's details (then again, there were some things that appeared in Mark that didn't on John and vice-versa). Anyway, I suppose that if you combine what each Gospel says, we can have a very good account of how the life, death and resurrection of the Christ was. They all seem to have something the other one doesn't have, and so they must somehow complement each other.

Round 2: Jesus' Teachings According to Mark

Throughout the Gospel, Jesus keeps on performing miracles. Like in John, he makes many blind people see and cures the diseases on many others. There was one particular case in which Jesus cures the a man at Bethsaida. This man is also mentioned in the Gospel According to John. In both Gospels the story is:
"And he cometh to Bethsai'da; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.

And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up; and he was restored, and saw every man clearly. And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town."(Mark 8:22-26, John 9:1-7).
It didn't happen exactly in each Gospel, since John pursued the story of them an further, having a trial over Jesus' actions by the Pharisees later, but it's the first healed person mentioned in both Gospels. Each Gospel has very different people who were cured by Jesus, and this is the only one in which they agree.
Going back to Mark, this Gospel has many teachings and very straight forward actions Jesus believes in (in contrast with John, in which no much was mentioned except for the lamb of God and how Jesus had come to save humanity). For example, Jesus talks about marriage and divorce. If you leave your husband/wife in divorce, you are committing adultery to him/her. It seems that to Jesus, you are married forever to the person you chose. Now that I think about it, I didn't even know divorce existed in that time. In that case, I know a lot of people who are committing adultery against their partner but they seem to be OK with it. It's just modern times. I wonder if they will go to hell for that (I hope not).
Jesus also told a rich boy to give away everything he had in order to go to heaven. He then said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25). I suppose I won't be able to go to heaven then, because I wouldn't be able to leave everything I had to go to heaven. I mean, I would if money weren't so important to survive these days. People say that money isn't the most important thing, but I say that it is at least in the top five. You need money to get a good education, get a good job and then get a good home where you can take care of your family and be able to survive. Have you ever seen the movie "In the Pursuit of Happyness"? That explains it all. Money is key to survive in the harsh world we live in today. It might not be the source of happiness, but at least it's the source of tranquility. Anyway, I suppose it would have been easier during Jesus' time. I hope he doesn't kick me out of heaven when I die for having lived a comfortable youth.

Round 1: Mark vs. John

I started to read the Gospel According to Mark as my second task after reading the Gospel of John. I thought they would be the same because apparently the Gospels are Jesus' story, and there can't be too many differences in one same story.
What I have been finding as I read is that it does seem like the same story with the same general plot line. However, there are some small differences of what happened and how the story is told. Until now, there are many things that happened according to John that didn't happen according to Mark and vice-versa. Also, the two Gospels agree on some things while they differ on others.
For example, in both Gospels Jesus was able to heal people and even resurrect them. However, the Gospel According to Mark assures that Jesus was also able to perform exorcisms on possessed people. In fact, it was one of his most popular abilities. Like it was mentioned:
 "And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him."(Mark 1:32-34).
In John, evil spirits are never mentioned, and Jesus never heals so many people. Jesus' miracles were not so frequent in John, while in Mark (like the aphorism would indicate) Jesus has no real problem in healing anyone that might have faith in him.
Something that came up in Mark that I hadn't seen in John were the parables. The parables (from what I read) was like Jesus' way to spread the word of God in metaphors. For example The Parable of the Sower, were he explains how the good people are ready to receive the teachings of God. Another parable would be the Parable of the Mustard Seed that goes:
"And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?

 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: but when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it." (Mark 4:30-32).
Again, I found in Mark's Gospel that Jesus chose his twelve disciples, and to them, he didn't give them parables, but gave them the teachings with no complications and even gave them healing and exorcist powers. John never really mentioned were the disciples came from, although he states (several times) that Judas will be the one to betray Jesus. I wonder why both Gospels say from so early in the story that Judas was the betrayer. Maybe the hate him a lot.
There is one part in which the two Gospels are totally agreeing with, which is the part of the angry Pharisees. This part (which if this Gospel is similar to John) will be seen again further on. Probably in this Gospel, the Pharisees will also be the ones who will want to kill Jesus.

INRI

What came next on the Gospel According to John was the main reason why Jesus is such an important figure in Christianity. This is when Jesus is caught, humiliated and finally crucified by the Jews. The time when he completes his mission on Earth finally arrives. Like the Gospel said:
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:1-3).
Every Spring Break, I wonder what would have happened if it hadn't been that way. What would have happened if Jesus hadn't been crucified and later resurrected?
First of all, I've always been impressed with Jesus' will to keep on with the torture. He was the Son of God he could have avoided the whole situation if he had wanted to. However, he wanted to sacrifice himself for humanity. He loved us so much he accepted endless torture and humiliation only to save our sinful souls.  Besides, he didn't really die. He knew he was going to resurrect, and that way he could prove he really was the Son of God, and start his new alliance (religion). It apparently worked because today, more than one third of the world population is Christian.
In the end, Jesus' sacrifice was good for everyone, and it was planned so that it would end well (somehow). Still, I can't help but think how evil was incorporated into this. Judas betrayed Jesus (it had been foreseen) to the Pharisees, which were in an awful need to kill him. They wanted to see him dead for claiming he was the King of Jews and the Son of God. They were even happy to let the evil Barabbas free in order to crucify Jesus.
Peter was a very disappointing case. During the Last Supper, he claimed he would give his life for Jesus. However, like Jesus had predicted, before the crow crew, Peter had already denied him three times. What a perfect display of hypocrisy.
Pilate is sort of a different situation. He didn't want to condemn Jesus at all. He did all he could to appease the angry Jews, but they only wanted Jesus' blood. Like the Gospel said:
" And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."(John19:12).
He really had no choice. If he let Jesus go, the Jews might make a scandal over Pilate ignoring the Caesar as the emperor. His very own life was at stake, so he couldn't sacrifice it over some weird Jew scandal. All Pilate can say to comfort himself is that Jesus didn't expect him to save him at all. I wonder if he ever felt remorse over what he did.
The happy ending of this story was that Jesus resurrected after the horrible ordeal he had to endure. I think we should all be thankful for the huge sacrifice Jesus made to save our sorry butts from burning in the fires of hell, and actually give us a chance of forgiveness.

Miracle Man

Jesus keeps on working on his mission. He keeps on spreading the word of God, and continues to make miracles. However, there are many who don't like Jesus at all. Jesus had previously cured a man at the pool of Bethesda. Many Jews grew angry because he had done so during sabbath. His breaking of the sabbath made them think he was a devil, or an evil person. They insisted on this when he kept curing people without really paying attention at the sabbath. He made a man who was blind since birth see, but he again did so during sabbath. This controversy created the following arguments:
"This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" (John 9:16). I really don't understand how they denied Jesus after all the miracles he was performing in the name of God. During that time, science and technology were in no way capable of disproving those miracles in the name of God. There was simply no way to scientifically deny that Jesus had cured the man's blindness with spittle clay. He even resurrected Lazarus after he'd been dead for four days. There's not enough science today to prove it can be scientifically done. There's no way to prove it wasn't a miracle which required the power of God to do so. So why did they keep denying him? What was the reason for the Pharisees to think an evil person could accomplish actions of good?
Several times they tried to stone Jesus, and poor Jesus insisted on his mission. I don't understand why Jesus would try to convince them anymore. He already knew that the Pharisees would try to kill him, so there was no real hope on making them see he was the real son of God. I think Jesus always knew what his fate was, because that was the real reason why he had been sent to this world. He even warned his disciples about it in the Last Supper. Like the Gospel said:
"Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end."(John 13:1).
It had been foreseen by Jesus a long time ago, and he was fully prepared for the horrors that were yet to come.

The Word of Jesus

In our path of reading the Bible and understanding the teachings of God, we have finally arrived to one of the crucial parts of Christianity: the Gospels. Surprisingly, as I started reading the Gospel according to John, I noticed I was familiar with many things that were mentioned. It appears to be that that's what I've been hearing in church, especially a few months ago during Easter Week.
In any case, this Gospel seems to be about Jesus' life as the Son of God. To me, Jesus is one of the most important characters that have ever existed. He was born from the Virgin Mary in a stable. He preached the lessons of God, and performed miracles for the benefit of the people. He came to Earth to save our poor and miserable humanity, and he shared all of human conditions except for sin. He let himself be crucified to save us, and he resurrected as the Holy Ghost so he can come back on the final day to judge us.
Jesus is the merciful part of God. In the Old Testament, God appeared as an almighty and sometimes fearful being. He had his temper, and he had no mercy over those who acted against his will. Jesus came to Earth as a fragile baby, and had to grow up as a human child to later become an adult. He worked to accomplish his mission of spreading the word of God, and bringing a message of hope of an eternal afterlife. Like he proclaimed:
"He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (John 6:47-51)
 His message was also of mercy and forgiveness, which is a very important part of the Catholic faith. Even when one has sinned, Jesus will be able to forgive you and protect you. Like he did with the woman caught committing adultery. The men asked Jesus if he would let them stone her, and he replied that those who were free of sin could do so freely. When everybody realized it, they went away in shame and Jesus asked, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11).
I really believe Jesus is a vital part of the Catholic faith, and if it weren't for his teachings it would be very hard for me to believe in the Catholic religion. I like Jesus' message, and even if some people say he didn't exist, I think the idea of Jesus is a great one. I can believe in his teachings whether he existed or not, or even if he wasn't the messiah at all, even if he was just a regular person. I feel his message is a very valuable one.

Not Possible!

The rest of Tao Te Ching was like hearing Lao Tze complain about bad governments and give his opinion on how he thought it should change. It seems as if the whole book had just been centered on that particular point. All the aspects of Tao applied to his reasons of how the government was wrong and how a government which followed the Tao would be a perfect country. He was almost painting his own version of Utopia.
What the Tao Te Ching highlights the most is the state of not acting. Therefore, Lao Tze uses it to criticize the rulers, and model a type of government he wants to be ruled by.
 He says that a government that interferes too much causes people to starve, rebel and lose the value for their life. Like the book said:
 " Why are the people starving? Because the rulers eat up their money in taxes...Why are the people rebellious? Because the government interferes too much... Why do the people think so little of death? Because the rulers demand too much f life."(pg.77, chapter 75). In other words, a leader who interferes is a bad ruler. "The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer the people become...The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers."(pg.59, chapter 57).
What Lao Tze wants is a government that rules with little actions. He almost wants a ruler to make the presence of a ruler, but make no restrictions over the people. This way, he thinks that people will freely do good, and respect one another without caring about having wealth or food, and live happily ever after!
There's something about that magnificent view that just doesn't fit well. I think Lao Tze hasn't heard about the Tree of Knowledge and doesn't know that people on the inside tend to look for the best for themselves. People are not going to follow the Tao unless someone somehow forces them to. However, he doesn't want a ruler to force laws upon them, so there's a small complication between what he wants and what lies between the possible limits.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that his dreamed Utopia is not possible inside the normal parameters of the universe and human capabilities.

Redifining Tao and Its Power

As I move on with the teachings of the Tao, I'm discovering there is still too much of it I don't understand, and as I read on, I keep finding more and more teachings that try to explain the Tao better.
From the chapters I read, I've confirmed that the Tao is something impossible to fully understand. Like the book says, "The Tao is forever undefined. Small though it is in the unformed state, it cannot be grasped."(pg.34 chapter 32). As I previously thought, it is the way of nature, and all the "ten thousand things" to which Tao is their source come back to it as it were their master, even if it's not. (pg. 36, chapter 34). The book also mentioned that if someone were able to control the Tao, he/she would be in control of the "ten thousand things". All the world would obey easily and everything would be as the controller of the Tao wants it to be. It's very good luck for us that the Tao is so impossible to grasp. I couldn't imagine what would happen if so much power could fall in a single person's hands. That would mean that everything and everybody on Earth would have to obey that person like we obey the Tao now (only this time we would be able to see what is that weird force that's making us do so many weird things). So I really hope the Tao stays just as it is: invisible, untouchable, unchanging and free (especially).
I also found that the Tao teaches about war. It obviously recommends not to use violence or weapons, but it said that when there's no choice, you must conquer without rejoicing over your victory, and you must not delight in it because it means you find pleasure in killing.
I wonder why the Chinese thinkers (Confucius and Lao Tze) I've been reading lately are so inclined to make their books so political. Confucius makes some of his teachings as if they were directed to someone with power. From the Analects for example:
 "Do not impose on other what you yourself do not desire."(15:24). "Impose" to me sounds like a ruler making choices for others who have no way of making their own or even protesting. From this I concluded that Confucius is trying to tell rulers to be fair with their people. I also came to think that maybe his book was indirectly written to people of high power so they would become better rulers from reading his book. Tao Te Ching makes its political appearance when the narrator says, "Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao..."(pg.32, chapter 30), and then advises about avoiding violence and war.
These two books were clearly trying to make a difference on the Chinese rulers of that time, and mold them the way each one of them thought a ruler should be. That's just something I thought of as I read, so it's not necessarily true. It was just a thought I wanted to consider.

What is the Tao?

The Tao Te Ching is starting to give some very important concepts of life. I recall that one of our class QUESTions was, "Why is  the world unjust?". The Tao Te Ching answers that question very simply, and quite originally. Its answer was:
"Accept disgrace willingly. Accept misfortune as the human condition."(pg.15, Chapter 13). The book explained that accepting disgrace willingly meant accepting being unimportant, and you shouldn't worry about losing or gaining, but simply satisfy yourself with what you already have.  Accepting misfortune as the human condition meant that being human meant having misfortune, and that's all there is to it.
From what I am understanding, the Tao is something you can't feel, touch or hear, but it's there all the same. It mysteriously formed, and is standing alone and unchanging. According to the text, it is one of the four powers of the universe, and it follows what is natural. It tells you it is impossible to do anything to achieve it, so you have to do exactly the opposite: do nothing. One of the teachings the Tao has is, " Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom, and it will be a hundred times better for everyone. Give up learning and put an end to your troubles." (pg.21-22 Chapter 19-20). It was impressive to read this ,especially after reading the Essential Analects of Confucius, which were all about learning and gaining wisdom. The Tao says not to bother yourself with those troubles, and instead follow its natural flow. It says that you'll achieve great things by not acting. For example:
"...the wise embrace the one and set an example to all. Not putting on a display, they shine forth. Not justifying themselves, they are distinguished. Not boasting, they receive recognition. Not bragging, they never falter. They do not quarrel, so no one quarrels with them. Therefore, the ancients say, ´Yield and overcome´." (pg.24 Chapter22). It's interesting how effective not acting can be. This must be what the Tao is about: not acting is the way of nature.

The Beginning of Tao

I just began to read Tao Te Ching, and I'm beginning to tag it as one of the strangest books I've ever read. I don't mean it in a bad way, because I'm actually starting to like it a little. What strikes me as weird of the text is that it bases its teachings upon very common aspects of life we can relate to, but we have never thought of before in that way. He uses a very common thing like a door to show us how important empty space is.
For example, "Cut doors and windows for a room; it is the holes which make it useful. Therefore, benefit comes from what is there; usefulness from what is not there." (pg. 13, chapter 11).
I had never thought the real usefulness of a door was the space in the middle which lets you in and out. If you think about it, the main difference between a door or window to a wall, is that it has space, which make your house accessible to light, wind and people.
However, I wonder what the difference between usefulness and benefit are. Wouldn't the usefulness of something be beneficial for you? In some way or another, something useful will be useful because it benefits you. So maybe, the useful and the beneficial are somehow connected.
 Also, if you look at it in another way, there are many examples in which I would doubt a useful thing is not there. For example, a lamp is very useful, and there's nothing taken off which makes it useful. The space around the bulb doesn't give the light, the filament with electricity does. In fact, many new light devices have eliminated that useless space to make smaller and more useful light devices.
In any case, I hope to find some explanation ahead in the book to explain my doubt over useful vs. beneficial.
The rest of the teachings I've read until now are very interesting too, and as I read, I hope I find some magic revelation that will help me understand them fully. I'm sure there's some important concept that connects all the teachings, and I'm curious to see if I'm right.
I'm also wondering what the Tao really is.

Science Vs. Religion

As a student, it is inconceivable to me to think that any law would prohibit teaching. What's even stranger to me is that anyone would want to deny the existence of science and how it affects every single aspect of our physical world. This is why I'm entirely opposed to the law that forbids the teaching of the evolution and sending a man to jail for doing so.

Science is one of the things I am completely certain of. Everything in our lives can be somehow related to science: astronomy, anatomy, chemistry, genetics, evolution, physics, etc. Every single aspect of our universe can be explained by science, and they are all somehow connected.

Religion is one part of life that is a little vaguer. It is all based on faith, and believing in a superior force we are not capable of fully understanding, and have never even seen before. I don't disagree with the moral teachings the Bible gives us because they are very valuable ones. I believe everyone needs some type of moral guidance in order to live peacefully in a community, and it’s not wrong to believe there is someone out there which could possibly be keeping on eye on us.

Many things in the Bible have miracles and occurrences that wouldn't be possible in the physical world. For example, during that time, people lived about 900 years, with each generation dying younger. Like it is mentioned during the first part of Genesis, “And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.” (Genesis 5:8). This is entirely impossible. Humans could never live that long: a regular human lifespan is about 70 years, depending on which country you live in. Even today with technology and medicine no one can live more than 120 years.

Another “fact” the Bible claims is every single person in the world comes from the blood of Adam and Eve. As far as I know, God only created Adam and Eve as the first humans. However, it is blatantly contradicted in Cain’s situation:

“And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.” (Genesis 4:17-18) Where did Cain’s wife come from? How did his children have more children? Did their wives suddenly pop out from the same place Cain’s wife came from? The same happens with Seth. How did he begat so many children? I seem to remember breeding from the same line of DNA can give offspring with damaged DNA, and many times these offspring have strange diseases that kill them young. How then, could generations and generations of humans come from only one couple (Seth and his unmentioned wife)?

In my personal opinion, the Bible shouldn’t be treated as fact or ancient history, as they want to treat it in the Scopes Trial. It’s absurd that people claim that the beginning of our human race is just as the Bible claims it to be, and refuse to accept other theories that have actually been physically proven and are based on real life that is happening right now (or certainly happened millions of years ago). We cannot deny that the universe and everything around us can be explained by terms other than a book.

It is great to follow the Ten Commandments and follow Jesus’ example of a good human. What I really wish people don’t do is limit the levels of our understanding to a book full of impossibilities that couldn’t possibly apply to the material reality we live in.

It's foolish to prohibit the learning and enrichment of our own knowledge, because for one thing, God gave us good brains to think, (if you want to believe it that way) and achieve great things. As great human thinkers, we should concentrate on moving forward in our path of wisdom and discovery, always open to new possibilities.

Standing Out

I kept reading the Analects, and found more teachings I appealed with. For example:
"When the multitude hates a person, you must examine them and judge for yourself. The same holds true for the man the multitude love." (15.28). I like this once because it tells you to judge for yourself over anyone else's opinion. Many times, the crowd isn't right about something and you cannot let their erroneous opinion influence yours. From this passage, I also noticed a very important thing: Confucius wants us to be individuals. I hadn't noticed before, but Confucius wants us, as single individuals, to become great gentlemen for the benefit of the society. Each person should strive to reach "Goodness" so the world can be a better place. What's best is that he doesn't want us to be part of the crowd. He wants us to have our own opinion over something, not letting the general opinion change our own judgement. This is the great difference between the Essential Analects and the Baghavad Gita. There, Krishna condemned individualism, which is something I didn't like about it.
This last reading let me realize something. Women are never mentioned! All Confucius says is man has to be good and the gentleman will be righteous, etc. Women are never part of his visions of a good human. The only part he thought of speaking of women, he insulted them:
" Women and servants are particularly hard to manage: if you are to familiar to them, they grow insolent, but if you are too distant, they grow resentful."(17.25). Since when are women unworthy of any comment but criticism? Doesn't Confucius see the real value of women? I do notice many cultures consider women as simple housewives that only belong at home, but at least some of them see them as a respected partner. I wonder if Confucius would ever try to give his teachings to a woman. It's so typical men have to be sexist pigs!

The Fear to Fail

These new readings have brought new thoughts to me. One of the passages I read was:
"That I fail to cultivate Virtue, that I fail to inquire more deeply into that which I have learned, that upon hearing what is right I remain unable to move myself to do it, and that I prove unable to reform when I have done something wrong-such potential failings are a constant worry to me." (7.3). Is this not what everybody fears? Isn't our possible failure of doing things right what scares us all? Or even not being able to correct the mistakes we've done?
We all come across crossroads in life, each turning to different directions. They depend on the decisions we make, and not all of them are good choices. The problem is, we never know which choice is best, and in life, there isn't a certain way of knowing that. People can advice you, or even incite you to take certain ways, but only you are the one able to make you final choice. The possibility of failing is always there, and many times, we can't be as good as we expected we would be. As time goes by, we trip, fall, trip again, and fall again. Fortunately, we can learn from our mistakes and learn to trip less often. This is probably why Confucius thinks elders are wiser than young people. Many times, time can be related to wisdom. Like Confucius said:
"If I were granted many more years, and could devote fifty of them to learning, surely I would be able to be free of major faults." (7.17).
There is something that bothers me still. Is age really a sign of wisdom? True. Elders have had enough time to make mistakes and learn from them, but have they made the same mistakes as you have done during your shorter life time? During the time they have lived and you are starting to live, a lot of things change. People, as well as society in general change, and choices that might have been the right ones during that time might not be the best ones for this time. I think that what we should do is find a balance between preserving ancient values and traditions, and welcoming progress and new ways. In my opinion, both of the have great advantages.
However, there is only one thing that will never change, and that is that we are all humans. No matter what type of choices or paths we want to take, we will somehow fall in our path to success, and we will somehow get up and move on.

Learning

Reading the Analects is an extremely hard task. The text has no logical order I can find, and the small "verses" or paragraphs are very dense and hard to understand. Sometimes I can't keep track of what I'm reading, and other times I have to reread a passage over and over again, to even understand what the words mean. However, I have been able to understand some small parts of what I started to read. From these little parts, I realize Confucius had some very good teachings, and they also have a very meaningful message. One of the passages I liked was:
"When you see someone who's worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself." (4.17). I interpreted this passage as Confucius' technique to help us become the best we can be. When we see the example of a "good" person, we can try to follow their example. When we see someone who is not "good", we can make a review of the example we ourselves are giving. This way, we can always strive to be the best we can be (in theory).
At the same time, I found some teachings that were a little exaggerated, and probably unnecessary. For example:
"While your parents are alive, you should not travel far, and when you do travel you must keep to a fixed itinerary." (4.19). Does this mean we need to be beside our parents until they die? Are we supposed to live with them and never be far for too long? I don't think our parents would like to take care of us for the rest of their lives. I do understand that Confucius wants us to respect our elders, but even for him, that's an unnecessary teaching (in my opinion).
I'll keep reading the Analects and maybe with practice, I'll get better at understanding the deep meaning each passage conveys. I really think it's important to be able to do so, because once you get the meaning of them, they become into valuable lessons (that you might or might not be able to apply in life. I don't think anyone could be as "good" and "worthy" as Confucius wants us to be).

I Will Fear No Evil: For Thou Art With Me

I actually liked to read these psalms. They were short, concise, and weren't full of unneeded dialogue or explanations. They are almost like a prayer one would say before going to sleep.  Unlike the rest of the books that make up the Bible, these "poems" are easier to understand. They have the same writing style, but at least they are short enough so one can keep focused. This way, I was actually able to understand what the narrator was trying to say. In fact, all the Bible should be summarized in little practical poems that you can even turn back to remember. Maybe this way, understanding Christianism, Judaism, and even Islam (because they are all somehow based on the teachings of their version of the Bible) would be a whole lot easier. (Also, making these blogs wouldn't be so hard!)
What's even more interesting is that I've heard parts of these psalms in modern music. For example:
 "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;" (Psalms 23:4).
This verse appears in Hammerhead, by the Offspring. What I can't really grasp is why a punk band would use Psalm verses in their songs? Another song I heard is about Psalm 137:1, and it's called Rivers of Babylon, by the Melodians. The Psalms have their message so well delivered that they are even useful to make songs from them. That's what I love about the Psalms!

The Crimes of David

Time has changed David a lot. I remember when he first appeared as the youngest of Jesse's sons. He was so young and so devoted to God he intended to kill Goliath with a simple stone. As soon as he started becoming older, his morals began changing. They didn't seem much at first. He sacked the house of one of his wives husband, but that didn't seem to have a negative impact on his image. He still was very devoted to God and respected him so much. For example, he didn't kill Saul because he was "one of God's anointed." (Samuel I 26:23). And then he became king.
Greediness and ambition can really twist a person's morals. When he finally gets to be king, he starts spreading his territory rapidly. In doing so, he kills thousands of innocent people, and sacks city after city. He even turned the lame and the blind into his personal enemies. Why would he do that? He literally said so, "the lame and the blind, that are hated of David’s soul," (Samuel II 5:8). Isn't a king supposed to have mercy on the week and the less fortunate? He conquered city after city mercilessly. Like he did with Metheg-ammah city:
"David took Metheg-ammah out of the hand of the Philistines. And he smote Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, and with one full line to keep alive. And so the Moabites became David’s servants, and brought gifts." (Samuel II 8:1-2).
During this time, merciless conquering isn't so bad. It's actually part of forming nations, and nobody takes it so seriously. Some think it's even justifiable. What David did that really messed everything up was commit adultery against Uriah. He lay with his wife Bathsheba, and she became pregnant. What's worse is that he then tries (and succeeds) to kill Uriah. David marries Bathsheba, and she has his son. It's so unfair that David, a king who has all the riches in the world and a lot of wives, can take the only precious thing Uriah had, which was his beloved wife. Like Nathan's metaphor said:
"There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter." (Samuel II 12.1-4).
It's actually fair that God gives him all that punishment for his crimes. Apart from making his kingdom full of turmoil, he killed his son. David deserved it for being such a greedy and ambitious pig. So much power went into his head and finished all the morals he had. Most men in power tend to loose their morals.

The Story of David

The story of David is a story of courage, jealousy, loyalty, betrayal and forgiveness.
Courage is a small shepherd deciding to fight a 6 cubit and a span tall giant. David, the youngest of the sons of Jesse, was brave enough (or stupid enough) to accept Goliath's challenge. One man from each side would fight, and the winner would let his side subdue the looser side. I still don't understand how they let the crazy kid go. It was almost an impossible situation.  As Saul said, "Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. " (Samuel I 17:32). Obviously David did have the advantage of being on God's side, so in the end, the duel was very unfair, but for the Philistine's side.
Saul let David go on his quest to kill Goliath, and later was very thankful. However, this gave David a lot more popularity than Saul had ever gained. What's worse is that David was a better than Saul in pretty much everything. Even the women were aware of this and they happily sang, "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." (Samuel I 18:7). This made Saul go green with envy. Such were his feelings of hate and envy, he attempted murder two times, sent him on a suicide mission (although it didn't end up too bad for David) and later laid a heavy pursuit on him. All of his attempts to destroy David were rebutted by David's excellent behaviour and God's help. Like the book said, "And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely:" (Samuel I 18:5). In the end, Saul was never able to kill David or get rid of his jealousy.
This story is very divided into loyalty ad betrayal. David was very loyal to Saul, and he worked for him as a loyal servant. However, he did go to the Philistine side when Saul started hunting him down, betraying the Israelites. Jonathan was also involved in a loyalty/betrayal dilemma. He "loved" his friend David, and became a truly loyal friend. As the book said, "Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." (Samuel I 18:3). This loyalty however, was intercepted with a duty to his father. He couldn't be a loyal friend and at the same time a loyal son, especially since Saul wanted to kill David. When Jonathan helped David escape, he did remain a true friend, but he betrayed his father.
In the end, it all came down to one thing: forgiveness. After his heavy pursuit, Saul was found by David helpless, but he decide not to kill him. He forgave him for all he made him suffer (and run), and let him live. In return, Saul promised not to hunt him down again, and they both reconciled. David remained a loyal friend and servant, because even after all Saul had done to him, he went back to give him a proper burial after he'd been murdered at war. David found all the pieces of Saul and Jonathan's bodies (which had been cut in pieces ad hung in different places) and buried them.

God Cares

Job's ordeal finally ended. After being reprehended by God for his inappropriate attitude, he was finally cured from his wounds, restored to the double of his wealth, and had ten beautiful children. In the end he won right? What astounded me of this ending was that God actually agreed with Elihu's opinion over Job's attitude. He also thought Job was in no position to criticize him, since he is none other than his creator. Had he been with him centuries ago when he decided to create man? Did he posses the knowledge and experience God had gained throughout all that time?  Of course not!  Like he asked Job:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38: 4-7).
 Job is nothing bu an insignificant speck in the whole space of history since the beginning. Job is only a small human being living along a million other humans and creatures. He only has to live with what he has, with no right to complain over any misfortune that could happen during his life. What can he do about it? Only God has any knowledge to judge all creatures on Earth.
In the end we all are in the same situation. We all live our lives thinking only about ourselves, and we forget we are living along another 6 billion people in the world. If we think about it, we are only 0.1 *10^-9% of the whole world population. We are nothing in this world, and yet we always feel we are the center of it. When something terrible happens to us, we feel that God has decided to curse you, and the whole world has turned against you. The truth is, not everything has to do with you. Like Job, we've got to learn to accept our fortune without complaining, because God somehow is the one managing it. If we trust in God, then we know that somehow, he will fix things.
He did create the world in the first place, and we have to acknowledge his thousands of years of experience. Even if he did make mistakes in the past (like leaving a forbidden fruit tree in the middle of a garden), over time he has learned how to deal with the terribly restless creatures humans are.
It is very comforting to think that no matter how many billions of humans are living right now, you can always know that God somehow has an eye on you.  It is very nice to think that you can be absolutely sure that there is at least one being in the universe that cares about you. 

That's What Friends Are For

This debate between Job and his friends was very impressive. At first, I couldn't understand why Job was guilty of any crime or wrongdoing. His friends kept saying he had somehow sinned and had to repent before God. Job kept saying he was completely innocent, and was suffering under no justification. Also, he was furious with his friends for doubting his righteousness. "I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all." (Job 11-37).

But then Elihu started with a point I hadn’t considered until he mentioned it. First of all, he was younger than the rest, but that didn't mean he wasn't as smart as or smarter than them. In addition, he respectfully waited for everyone to finish their arguments, and say everything they had in their minds to later give his own opinion. His opinion was that Job was thinking he was more righteous than God. It may have been true, but although he had not sinned, his attitude was sinful. One of his arguments was:

"For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment. Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable without transgression. What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men. For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God..." (Job 34:5-9).

I completely agree with Elihu's remark. Who is Job to reclaim to God? What true knowledge lets him judge whether God has a right to punish (or in this case test) him? It is true Job is a righteous man, and he hasn't committed any sin that deserves a curse from God, but he is still a human being. Couldn’t he even consider that God knows something he doesn’t know? He was created by God, and only he can know how to judge each piece he has created. Job cannot go into the state of arrogance he has entered, and try to reclaim to God, because that would infer that Job is wiser, or simply morally superior to God. That is not a very smart thing to say when God has just taken all your wealth, health and family.

In conclusion, Elihu's advice was the best any friend could have given to Job. He not only supported Job in his earnest claim of rightfulness (in contrast to his other friends who only accused him of somehow sinning), but he also showed him a new angle of his case he probably hadn't considered before. Maybe that could be the solution to end Job's terrible curse

A Small Mistake

Reading this part of the book of Job was reading a completely different story from Exodus and Genesis. For the first time, a human preferred by God had to go through a terrible ordeal. Never had God hurt anyone of his favorite men. Abraham was given a huge amount of wealth, good children and a whole land for himself. The only time he had to sacrifice something was when God asked him to give his son as a sacrifice, but that was only a test, and he never killed Isaac. Jacob became rich, had four wives and twelve kids (what more can a man ask?), and became the founder of the Israelites. Moses never got as much as a scratch. All he had to do was go to the Pharaoh, as for the Israelites' freedom and wait aside as God destroyed Egypt with all kinds of plagues. He didn't even have to hunt for food or water, because God threw it from the sky. Basically, if you are a VIP for God, your life is made. This is why I'm so confused with Job's fate. He apparently was a better person than any of his ancestors, because as the Bible said:


"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil." (Job 1:1).

He was practically perfect, and never had he sinned or in the very least displeased God. Hadn't God wanted this from every single human he had created since Adam and Eve's time?

It all happened when God started bragging about him to Satan, and he took advantage of the situation to test how far could that perfection go. When he found that taking all his wealth and all his offspring wasn't enough to make Job curse God, he continued to physical sacrifice. The pain was so great he wanted to die, and he was even wishing he had never been born. I wonder how God had agreed to all of this unnecessary torture. Wasn't he happy enough to have at least one human in the whole world that hadn't turned up a total disaster as almost all of his past creations were? What is wrong with God during this book? The punishment he was receiving has no reason or justification, because Job was a perfect son of God. Even his friends were impressed, and kept saying he must have angered God in some way, in order to be experiencing so much sorrow and pain. And yet it was almost like a bet between God and Satan to see if he was as perfect as he appeared. I wonder if Job will keep loving God after all he’s done to him. Be very annoyed if I found the God I've been honoring all my life suddenly started punishing me with no reason, just to show Satan how perfect I am.

The Exodus By: God

Exodus is a story that I've known for years. I know by heart the incident of the flaming bush, the miracle of the serpent/rod, the bloody river and the seven plagues. It was all perfectly clear to me until I read the King James Bible, and discovered the story wasn't as simple as I thought.

First of all, God was the one who caused everything. It is true the Pharaoh had the Israelites as his slaves, and God was trying to free his people from the Egyptian oppression. But the following quote, which was repeated many times, left me very confused:

"And the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land." (Exodus 11:10)(This quote is similarly repeated in Exodus 7:13, 9:7, 9:35 and 10:20,). I don't understand why the Lord would harden Pharaoh's heart? What was the need of it? What I understand of the story was that God wanted to free the Israelites and send them to the Promised Land. Like he said when he appeared in the flaming bush to Moses:

"I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey;" (Exodus 3:7-8).

He gave Moses signs so people would believe his story, and he walked with him to speak. If he indeed wanted to free his people, then instead of hardening the Pharaoh's heart, couldn't he have softened it? Maybe he needed the plagues to show all his power to the people, and make everyone see he is more powerful than any other god they worshipped. After all, he did say, "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." (Exodus 20:5). Still, I think that after the locust plague, when the Pharaoh asked for forgiveness and let the Israelites go, God again hardened his heart and decided to give him more plagues. If you think about it, the Pharaoh repented at least twice, and if God hadn't intervened, the Israelites would have gone from Egypt sooner. In the end, I think the Israelites wouldn't have made the journey to the Promised Land if God hadn't shown all his power and created so much fear amidst the people.

So I think Exodus was God's way to herd the people out of Egypt into the Promised Land where they could live in a covenant with him.

The Story of Jacob and Esau

The story of Jacob and Esau was a little leaned on Jacob's side of the balance. After all, he was the one who got the birthright in exchange of lentil porridge, and he tricked his father in giving him a final blessing. It was very unfair to Esau, but it seems God didn't seem to care Jacob was getting all the good luck. He even called to him and blessed him and his future inheritors. God promised:

"I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee..." (Genesis 28:13-15).
Still, God seemed to have everything planned, because he made Jacob work to gain his right as one of God's blessed. Laban made him work for seven years in order to earn Rebecca’s hand in marriage, but Laban forced him to marry his first daughter Leah. To get Rebecca he had to work seven more years, and to get enough animals he had to work six more years. How did he agree to that exploitation? Maybe he new he deserved it for all his past stunts against his brother.
The fight between Leah and Rebecca for being the favorite was impressive. Leah started to have lots of children while Rebecca was barren (God interference). Then Rebecca used her handmaid to have children with Jacob on her name. Leah started doing the same, and then Leah used her own handmaid. Finally, God opened Rebecca’s womb and she too had kids. I wonder how Jacob was feeling about all of this. I guess he was just happy getting more and more inheritors for his new generation. In the end he had four wives and twelve kids! As the Bible clearly stated:
"Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padan-aram." (Genesis 35:22-26).
I'm very glad Jacob and Esau were able to make up in the end. Jacob's actions were cruel, but Esau found it in his heart (helped by the huge amount of animals Jacob sent him) to forgive his younger brother, and there would be no resent between them. It was actually a very happy ending for Isaac's family. Apart that his grandsons destroyed a whole city (to protect their sister's honor), he probably died feeling proud of his family.

A Future That Would Never Be

In this first part of Genesis, God created the universe and molded it to form how things came to be this way. A lot of things happened here that would change our world as it is right now. All I can think of is how the world would be if Adam and Eve had never tried the forbidden fruit. The world would be a completely different place. For example, snakes weren't meant to slide on the ground. In fact, in that time they were some other creature very different to snakes that probably had legs. Because of the apple incident, however, it was punished and cursed to slide on it's belly for the rest of eternity.

Humans are another big example. If Eve hadn't taken the forbidden fruit, humans would have never been kicked out of Eden. How amazing would that be? We would be able to run around Eden, never having to work on anything else than gardening Eden, free of any worry, free of any sin over good or evil, and completely ignorant of the knowledge the forbidden fruit could give us. Like the Bible said, "the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" (Genesis 2: 15-16).
Life between men and women would also be very different. Men and women would understand each other, and there would be no enmity. Women wouldn't suffer while giving birth and men wouldn't be superior to women as they are thought so today. But for her disobedianece, Eve was punished worse than anyone. When God found out it was Eve who had taken the forbidden fruit, he declared:
 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:15-16).
Adam and all men that would come after were punished also. The final condemn of God was:
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3:17-19).
In other words, the world would have been a wonderful place if Adam and Eve wouldn't have screwed up everything. The whole reality we live in today wouldn’t exist if Adam and Eve would have stayed in the garden, obedient to God. Still, I think humans were never meant to live that kind of life. God put that tree there for a reason, so even if Adam or Eve never ate of the fruit, one of their descendants would take it someday. Curiosity is a human impulse that can become too great to overcome. It’s just human nature, and God created us with it, so he never meant for us to stay there for long.

God Almighty

This chapter shows that God will never stop interfering with humans. He decided Sodom and Gorromah didn't deserve to live, so he destroyed the cities. Fortunately God has some mercy, and was willing to forgive the city if there were even ten righteous people in it. Sadly he didn't find the ten, so he saved Lot and his family (although their mother looked back to the city so she turned into a salt pillar), and destroyed the two cities. I do understand why he would be angry with the two cities (because they were sinners), but I don't think they believed in him, so what reason did he have to destroy the cities. Wouldn't they finish their lives and then go to hell? What was the need to destroy them if their going to be punished in the end anyway? Who knows if some of the people would repent some day? God took their chance of salvation away, and decided to just condemn them all.

Later he wanted to punish Abilmelech for taking Sara from Abraham, even if they had said she was her sister. Albimelch protested, "Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this." (Genesis 19:15-16). That part I really didn't understand.

Another example is when he tests Abraham. God just needs the ultimate proof that Abraham is completely loyal to him, so he asks for his only son for sacrifice. One day he said, "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." (Genesis 22:2). I really don't know how Abraham obeyed so easily. He didn't even seem to falter or think twice. It really was an act of unconditional obedience that I wouldn't expect from any person I know. I personally wouldn’t have been able to give anyone I'm attached to for sacrifice, not even to the greatest God that ever existed. I wonder how Isaac felt after that experience. I honestly wouldn't go near my dad if he even thought of giving me as sacrifice to a God, even if it is just a test.

Fortunately for Abraham, his complete devotion to God gave him good results. He was blessed by God, and had good fortune for the years that came after. In the end, all he suffered was rewarded by God's approval. That's the advantage of being on God's side. What impresses me of what I've read until now is how different God is during that time to the image of God we have today. In that time, if you weren't in God's side, you might as well right your will soon, because your future could lie in drowning, burning, turning into salt or just be eternally cursed by God. Today's image (the one I believe in) is a God that loves everyone, no matter what he/she does. He is full of forgiveness, and encourages people to love your friend and your enemy alike. He wants us to strive for kindness and good actions, and leave violence as a useless solution. Obviously this image of God is a lot nicer than the version of God that appears on Genesis. In this era of violence and disturbance, a God like this one is just what we need.

To the Promised Land

During these chapters, I noticed that each generation lives a little less than the previous one, but they give no explanation at all. As each father gives children, they satr dying a little younger each time. Just like the Bible said:

"These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: It all starts with Shem, "And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: ... And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters...  And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah: And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and daughters. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." (Genesis 11:10-26)

I also noticed that God broke his promise of not interfering with humans after the flood. First he caused everyone to speak different languages, so they wouldn't live together and conceive great achievements like the Tower of Babel. That's very jealous of God! He ruins man in all ways possible so they can live under his dominion. Obviously, since Adam ate the apple of good and evil, God fears the human possibility of destroying the world, and therefore tries to inhibit man's ability to create.

He also broke it again by sending Abraham to "the promised land". Why does God want Abraham to go to this land so much? He shows so by saying:
"Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3). It seems God wants to start over with a new nation. He already failed with the descendants of Adam starting with Cain murdering Abel. He killed all of their descendants in the flood except for Noah and his family. Apparently, he doesn't trust them too much, since he gave them different languages so they couldn't understand each other, and hence had to be dispersed across the land. Now he wants Abraham to go to this Promised Land and maybe make a country of God's followers. He blessed him and his following generations (unlike Adam to which he cursed for eternity) so they could thrive in this land he promised to Abraham if he decided to go there. Apparently God doesn't want to give up on humans yet. He still has some hope that at least one human turns out to be what he expected when he decided to create humans so they could rule the Earth (Genesis 1: 28).

God's Wrath

These chapters of Genesis also show the huge sexist attitude the Bible has. How come the woman gets the blame for eating the fruit? It was the snake who tricked her into eating it. And why would that tree be in Eden in the first place? If God didn't want anyone to eat from it, why would he put it there?

The punishment to Eve was worse than any other, and I think it was very unfair. One of God's punishments to Eve was, "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
After the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, everything seemed to go wrong for God. Apparently evil struck Cain and he killed his brother Abel. God punished him and set a mark on him that every man who saw him had to kill him. I don't understand why God made the curse of revenge a sevenfold of times over Cain's murder. All he did was create violence among humans, and see that evil was what ruled most men's hearts.
Fortunately for him, Adam and Eve's third son, Seth, was good and had generations of good descendants. When God was already tired with his huge screw up of creation, he decided to get rid of everything and start over (like if the Earth was just a video game where you can restart countless times). He told Noah (who like his ancestors was like 600 years old and was considered young) to build an ark where he would save a pair of each species and simply cleared the Earth of life. Fortunately for future generations, after the flood God promised he would never interfere again in Earth matters. He places a rainbow every time there's a cloud to assure us we aren't going to die. But honestly who knows? God seems to have a very unstable personality in Genesis. If you get him angry enough, he just might forget to put the rainbow, and that's when we have to run for our sorry lives. I definitely hope he doesn't loose his temper any time while I'm alive (which hopefully won't happen, because unlike people at that time, life expectancy doesn't go above 80 years average in the older people countries).

For Adam's Delight

This text stunned me because I didn't know how God had such a big preference for Adam (meaning I didn’t know how sexist the Bible was). He created a huge garden were he could live carelessly and only had to tend of the garden. Like the Bible stated, "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:" (Genesis 2:15-16). He didn't need to work for his food and everything in it was beautiful. Then he created animals to give him company and to be under his rule (he could eat them whenever he wanted). After that, he created Eve to give Adam some company. Only because Adam felt lonely did God think of creating a partner for him. This means God didn't see women as a priority for the universe. So, since the beginning, women have been less than men. It is so weird even God himself says that women have to be men's company, and wouldn't exist if man hadn't needed a little company. It’s sad how even God forgets the importance of women in the universe.

The Harmful End

The story of Eros and Psyche, and Bacillus and Philemon, had only one thing in common: love. It seems that love is present in most Greek myths, because apparently for them, love was a very important part of life. If you think about it, love is probably the most important part of life in our modern culture (Almost all songs written today are about love).
The description of love, personified as Eros the god of love, was so accurate, it impressed me. He has wings so he can move quickly from person to person. He is showed naked to represent how we expose ourselves to others when we’re in love. He is blind, to show how compulsive and foolish one becomes when fallen in love. That's just how love is today. Not much has changed over the centuries, and the human heart still strives for an equal love (expectations are just a little different now). "The soul wanders in the dark until it finds love." (pg 76)
In Bacillus and Philemon, neither of them wanted to outlive the other. They loved each other so much, they never wanted to be separated by the imminent fate of death. Fortunately for them, their wish was granted, and in addition, they were exempt from the fate that should come to all living beings. Mortality was no longer an obstacle for their love.
Still, as strong as everyone claims love to be, it is also extremely fragile. One wrong move or even one wrong word can destroy everything. It is a very hard thing to control, and most of the times, when love is broken, sadness, anger and pain are what follows. Some relationships are like a uranium atom. It has to have just the right amount of neutrons to balance the protons. If something goes wrong, and there's a tiniest change in the atom, it can cause it to collapse and release a huge amount of energy that can vaporize a person in tenths of a second, and destroy everything at a 3 km radius (atomic bomb). That's how powerful love can be. It is really hard to escape love’s traps, and like the story said, “It’s just inevitable.” (pg.76). I just wish they weren't so harmful.
Reading Metamorphoses was a great, because it helped me understand human characteristics that are still present today. Greek mythology has influenced the world amazingly (far more than we think), so it is important to know their stories well. Besides, they are very entertaining, because it is very easy to relate to them
.

Your Little Voice

His wish, to ride the horse of day

Instead he burned the Earth away.

The story of Phaeton made me think how stupid it is to ignore good advice. "Don't do it!" was Phoebus' suggestion, but Phaeton decided to ignore his father’s excellent advice and take the chariot anyway. Being impulsive and not taking a moment to think what the consequences could be (even if his father had already warned him it was 100% dangerous), he took the chariot and messed up everything. And his father couldn't do anything, because he had sworn to grant him any wish, and he already had a very bad standard with his son for abandoning him. He couldn’t simply forget his oath, even if it was for Phaeton’s own good.

I many times think on cases like this one, "Where is that little voice that tells you to be careful?" I have that little voice, and it's always warning me to be aware of what's going on. It is important to listen to this little voice that could be called "survival instinct", because listening to it can be useful, and could save your sorry butt from many senseless stupidities. In Phaeton's case, if he had listened to his little voice, maybe he would have paid attention to his father, thought twice about it and saved himself from the terrible catastrophe he caused.

I was amazed how the characters in the story were related and even personified from things that exist in real life. For example, relating the sun to a god that takes a flaming chariot across the sky is very original. Then time (hours, days and years) being Phoebus' secretaries (time is measured by Earth's rotation around the sun) also makes a lot o sense. It's for me a very interesting way to understand the universe and different aspects of life, because that's what myths are after all, "Myths are the earliest forms of science."(pg.67). It is actually a very clever way of understanding life.

The Weight of Love

The story of Pomona and Vertumnus is like a sign of hope for most teenage girls of modern time. Girls are desperate to fit into society's image of the perfect girl, set down by models, fashion trends and mainstream propaganda. This makes girls desperate to be like the image media has set as a standard. They try to change themselves so they can achieve this (in some ways they are disguising themselves to get people's attention). What this story says is that all you need to do is be yourself and people will like you just as you are, with no need of copying others or changing who they are. People frequently get tricked by the sense that all people care about is the outside part (which in most cases is sadly true), but there are some cases in which what really matters is the inside.


I was impressed with Myrrhas' story. Who would have thought that Aphrodite was so powerful she could make her fall in love with her own father. To me, this was a little grotesque, and very cruel from the goddess. Who said falling in love is an essential part of life? Of course she is the goddess of love and wants everyone to depend on her, but love isn't necessarily a sexual relationship. Love can be found in many other ways, like love to your family or love to your homeland, etc. I even think life would be better if there was no need for couple relationships. To me, that type of relationship is full of lies, cheating and eventual suffering. For example Myrrha's love for her father caused her a lot of grief, desperation and sadness in the end. She even made her own father suffer after he discovered he was with his own daughter. I really think love (couple relationships) is a much overestimated thing.